Representation for England.
Discussion
Apologies if this has been raised before my time here.
The anomaly of England being the only country of the UK not having an exclusive parliament was raised on one of the Corona threads.
It does seem wrong that NI, Wales, and Scotland have devolved powers, yet England does not.
Thoughts ladies and gents, please.
The anomaly of England being the only country of the UK not having an exclusive parliament was raised on one of the Corona threads.
It does seem wrong that NI, Wales, and Scotland have devolved powers, yet England does not.
Thoughts ladies and gents, please.
I think a federal system of government for the UK would be a good thing - it would certainly satisfy the desire in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for genuine devolved government and would address the imbalance of the current system where England is alone in not having that level of governance.
The problem is that if you simply federalise the UK along the current national boundaries then you end up with something profoundly unequal due to the dominance England has in population and economic activity. England has over 80 per cent of the UK population and something like 90 per cent of its economy. So anything that England does within its own borders would risk overwhelming the effect of policies in the same area taken by the other three federal nations or effectively forcing alignment with England through its own economic weight.
And say you reformed the House of Lords as the federal parliament with representatives of the four federated nations - if England was granted HoL members in accordance with its population it would have 80 per cent of the representatives, thus putting the federal UK effectively under English control. You could balance this by not filling the federal parliament on the basis of population (for instance the US Senate has two senators per state, regardless of population) but then you effectively massively over-represent all the nations that aren't England which is swapping one sort of democratic deficit for another.
So you'd probably end up having to divide England into a number of federal regions. That in itself raises issues because those regions will have even less popular identity and support than the nation of England does, while the other UK nations get to 'keep' their historic identities. Perhaps the solution is to reintroduce English federal entities along the lines of the Saxon heptarchy? You'd end up with four 'nations' of between 3 and 4 million people, a Mercia of around 10 million, a Northumbria of about 15 million and, if you expand 'London' to an entity that incorporates the bits of the home counties that are practically and economically dependent on the capital, a capital territory of about 13 million.
This would mean that within the federal UK you had Wales and four English elements of roughly the same size, Scotland and 'Mercia' of about the same size, 'Northumbria' and 'London' roughly balancing each other and Northern Ireland and 'Dumnonia' level pegging as well. Every entity has at least one other to balance it, no one entity has undue sway over the others and even if the two largest elements formed a voting alliance they wouldn't have undue economic or demographic power.
The real problem would be that such an arrangement would also require the drafting of a fixed federal constitution - a written constitution is something that is probably well overdue for the UK and introducing a federal union would be the perfect time to draft one, but that is going to be a political and cultural minefield which will make leaving the EU look like picking lottery numbers.
The problem is that if you simply federalise the UK along the current national boundaries then you end up with something profoundly unequal due to the dominance England has in population and economic activity. England has over 80 per cent of the UK population and something like 90 per cent of its economy. So anything that England does within its own borders would risk overwhelming the effect of policies in the same area taken by the other three federal nations or effectively forcing alignment with England through its own economic weight.
And say you reformed the House of Lords as the federal parliament with representatives of the four federated nations - if England was granted HoL members in accordance with its population it would have 80 per cent of the representatives, thus putting the federal UK effectively under English control. You could balance this by not filling the federal parliament on the basis of population (for instance the US Senate has two senators per state, regardless of population) but then you effectively massively over-represent all the nations that aren't England which is swapping one sort of democratic deficit for another.
So you'd probably end up having to divide England into a number of federal regions. That in itself raises issues because those regions will have even less popular identity and support than the nation of England does, while the other UK nations get to 'keep' their historic identities. Perhaps the solution is to reintroduce English federal entities along the lines of the Saxon heptarchy? You'd end up with four 'nations' of between 3 and 4 million people, a Mercia of around 10 million, a Northumbria of about 15 million and, if you expand 'London' to an entity that incorporates the bits of the home counties that are practically and economically dependent on the capital, a capital territory of about 13 million.
This would mean that within the federal UK you had Wales and four English elements of roughly the same size, Scotland and 'Mercia' of about the same size, 'Northumbria' and 'London' roughly balancing each other and Northern Ireland and 'Dumnonia' level pegging as well. Every entity has at least one other to balance it, no one entity has undue sway over the others and even if the two largest elements formed a voting alliance they wouldn't have undue economic or demographic power.
The real problem would be that such an arrangement would also require the drafting of a fixed federal constitution - a written constitution is something that is probably well overdue for the UK and introducing a federal union would be the perfect time to draft one, but that is going to be a political and cultural minefield which will make leaving the EU look like picking lottery numbers.
Johnnytheboy said:
Blair wanted "regional assemblies", basically for the bits that wouldn't always be Tory.
I think an English Parliament, and harmonisation of the powers devolved to all the constituent nations would be a great idea.
I think an English Parliament, and harmonisation of the powers devolved to all the constituent nations would be a great idea.
And brought back the London Mayor. North of England voted No with a tiny turnout IIRC.I've traditionally been pro-federalist, but watching the mess that is the US right now I'm not sure it's a silver bullet for our constitutional problems either.
There is bugger all appetite for localism. It sounds like a nice idea, but once in place, no one pays it any attention. The last thing we need is Westminster as a UK assembly and some other all-England or regional English parliaments. The latter wouldn't get scrutinised properly and would attract 3rd-rater politicians. If you've already got a clear idea of your own nationhood, particularly when it is rooted in your sense of difference from your big, dominating neighbour, then Joe Public will just about engage with your regional parliament (or assembly). But that clearly doesn't apply to the English in general, even when some regions characterise themselves at least in part as not being Southern/Londoners. The status quo is fine. Very few really get exercised about it, hence why it is not on anyone's political radar. If some rabble rouser did succeed in stirring up some popular angst, the least bad solution would be for non-English MPs to formally be ineligible to vote on devolved matters. Westminster would switch from being a national to an all-England parliament for specific bills. But if we can get away without those gymnastics, so much the better.
bp1 said:
Already have it, its called westminster.
Westminster does not represent the separate interests of England; quite the reverse in fact, as Scotland, Wales and NI are over represented there.England has 1 MP per C115,000 head of population, Scotland 1 per C92,000, Wales 1 per C78,000, & NI 1 per C104,000
John Locke said:
bp1 said:
Already have it, its called westminster.
Westminster does not represent the separate interests of England; quite the reverse in fact, as Scotland, Wales and NI are over represented there.England has 1 MP per C115,000 head of population, Scotland 1 per C92,000, Wales 1 per C78,000, & NI 1 per C104,000
ATG said:
John Locke said:
bp1 said:
Already have it, its called westminster.
Westminster does not represent the separate interests of England; quite the reverse in fact, as Scotland, Wales and NI are over represented there.England has 1 MP per C115,000 head of population, Scotland 1 per C92,000, Wales 1 per C78,000, & NI 1 per C104,000
English MPs have no influence on those matters in Scotland/Wales/ N Ireland as they are outside of Westminster's control.
However, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on those matters in Westminster even though they only affect England. SNP and Labour MPs from Scotland and Wales (together with rebelling Libdems) used this to prevent the Coalition Government from passing some English specific legislation between 2010 and 2015.
ralphrj said:
ATG said:
John Locke said:
bp1 said:
Already have it, its called westminster.
Westminster does not represent the separate interests of England; quite the reverse in fact, as Scotland, Wales and NI are over represented there.England has 1 MP per C115,000 head of population, Scotland 1 per C92,000, Wales 1 per C78,000, & NI 1 per C104,000
English MPs have no influence on those matters in Scotland/Wales/ N Ireland as they are outside of Westminster's control.
However, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on those matters in Westminster even though they only affect England. SNP and Labour MPs from Scotland and Wales (together with rebelling Libdems) used this to prevent the Coalition Government from passing some English specific legislation between 2010 and 2015.
In this context is also worth considering how little difference the devolved powers have actually made. Is healthcare, education or transport significantly different in England, Scotland and Wales? No. They are almost identical. And no surprise, because the expectations that people have and the challenges in delivering these services has bugger all to do with whether you're standing in England, Scotland or Wales. The devolved institutions are mostly symbolic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff